Oral Questions

1. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes. From time to time, statements may be made that should not have been. In those instances, such as yesterday with the Minister for Children’s comments in this House, the right thing to do is apologise, and that is what he has done.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that it’s ever acceptable for her Ministers to answer questions with personal attacks on someone’s identity when they’re doing their job, such as children’s Minister Kelvin Davis’ comments to Karen Chhour that she is “looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no.

Nicole McKee: Has she or anyone in her office demanded children’s Minister Kelvin Davis today apologise for his statements that Karen Chhour is living in a Pākehā world, and “it’s no good looking at the world [through] a vanilla lens.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Davis advised the office that he would apologise and the Prime Minister agreed with that.

Nicole McKee: Why did Kelvin Davis make his comments towards my colleague Karen Chhour in the House and then double down on them when he was speaking with media yesterday, and how will she ensure nobody in her Government attacks anyone trying to do their job, on the grounds of identity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Many things get said in this House and this Chamber, and members reflect on that and make a later decision to apologise. That is exactly what the Minister for Children has done.

Nicole McKee: Does she believe I’m asking this question through a vanilla lens, or have I crossed the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and does the Government have a policy to decide when someone is culturally inappropriate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, no.

Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: 大家好, and 你好, Mr Speaker. What updates has she seen about people being supported into jobs in West Auckland?

I was pleased to read that more than 40 unemployed West Aucklanders have secured jobs at Costco’s new megastore in Westgate, which opened yesterday. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has worked alongside Costco to help it find some of the right people to staff its first New Zealand store, filling full- and part-time positions in warehousing and product demonstrator roles.

Vanushi Walters: Why are partnerships like this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This is a great example of what can be achieved when partnering with businesses and employers. The partnership meant that MSD were able to work with Costco to help provide opportunities for people who want to not only build a career in merchandising and warehouse operations but who live and want to work locally. Partnerships like this don’t happen by coincidence, however. MSD’s work brokers make a point of learning as much as they can about an employer’s business so they can match them with suitable job seekers. Helping people find and keep employment is a key focus for our Government.

Vanushi Walters: What feedback has she seen from Costco about supporting job seekers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I was pleased to read of Costco’s managing director’s commitment to job seekers. Patrick Noone said, “We pay over the award rate and the living wage. We want to give people really, really good jobs; good training.” In response to the notion that other businesses were struggling with a national skill shortage, he said, “If you pay the right wages and have the right working conditions, you [can] get the right people.” He also added that he little problem finding staff himself.

Vanushi Walters: What type of recruitment activities does MSD undertake to support the likes of Costco and other employers?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: MSD held employer days at the Waitakere Service Centre and at Te Manawa library prior to the store opening. MSD also offers a no-fee recruitment service for employers, with the employers often choosing to also interview people at the MSD office, as they can also talk to MSD about extra support that might be available. Once an employer has found a candidate to hire, they may be able to get extra support through a range of training and employment assistance, including wage subsidies and post-placement support and training. In West Auckland, industries like retail, construction, and business support are all regular users of MSD’s employment services.

Vanushi Walters: What other uptakes has she seen on people moving off a benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re encouraged by the continuing high numbers of people moving off a benefit and into paid employment nationally. The three months to June saw 26,334 cancellations of benefit as people moved into work, including 9,255 people who had been receiving a main benefit for more than a year. In the Auckland region, there were 7,725 cancellations of benefit as people moved into work in the three months to June.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.

Nicola Willis: Will Government employees and employers be required to pay the income insurance levy, and, if so, how much will the jobs tax cost the Crown?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the first part of the question, details of the scheme are still being finalised. In answer to the second part of the question, there is no such thing.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm that the jobs tax—that is, the levies for the income insurance scheme—will be subject to GST, and, if so, how much extra money does the Government estimate it will collect in GST as a result?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there is no such thing as what the member alleges in her supplementary question.

Nicola Willis: Would the Minister care to explain to New Zealanders who are set to say goodbye, on average, to $834 of their pay packet how that’s not a tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because just as the member has never stood up in the House and said that an ACC levy is a tax, this is a levy to run a scheme which will then pay out to somebody, for instance, who is paying $834 in annual contribution, which equates to $16 per week—that would pay to that person $780 per week if they were in receipt of the scheme.

Nicola Willis: Will the Minister consider stopping any low-priority Government spending in response to growing inflation pressure and global financial instability, and, if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government constantly reviews its programmes and will do so leading into Budget 2023. The assurance I can absolutely give the member is that we would never go for a low-priority policy like tax cuts for the highest-earning New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Does she agree with the Minister of broadcasting that a merger of TVNZ and RNZ is needed because “We have no longer a trust in national media”, and, if so, what evidence does the Prime Minister have that spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a megamerger will enhance public trust in media?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, there have been regular surveys across New Zealanders about their view of all media and a loss of trust in that. More to the point, it is important that New Zealanders have access to content where they can see themselves and hear themselves and that that content is produced in such a way that is futureproofed for New Zealand. It is one of many things that the Government can do to ensure that New Zealanders’ wellbeing and their living standards rise in the future.

Nicola Willis: Does she remain committed to the operating allowance the finance Minister has promised for next year’s Budget, or does she intend to break that spending cap, as has been the case for the past five Budgets, in order to fund boondoggles like a TVNZ-RNZ merger?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance has not advised me of any change that is planned to the operating allowance. The Minister of Finance has, in the past, made clear that the reason we have an operating allowance is to ensure that we reach the bigger targets that the Government has, such as around debt or surplus. And the Government has been able to reach those, having one of the lowest levels of debt in the OECD and a prediction of return to surplus a year before the National Government would have after the global financial crisis. I thank the member for the question.

Question No. 4—Health

4. to the Minister of Health: What reports has he seen on the consequences of increased funding provided to Pharmac and the review of Pharmac completed in February?

I was pleased to read from Pharmac that this year, Pharmac has been able to use additional funding in this year’s Budget to fund three new treatments and increase access to an additional 14. It’s also continuing to consider proposals for another eight medicines. Pharmac’s decision to fund Spinraza for the rare disorder known as spinal muscular atrophy and adrenaline auto-injectors for those at risk of anaphylactic or life-threatening allergic reactions, which was announced yesterday, will make a substantial difference to the lives of those who need these treatments.

Arena Williams: What is the significance of funding Spinraza?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare disorder affecting up to 75 people, including 35 children, in New Zealand. A Pharmac review earlier this year noted that there needed to be more attention to rare disorders, and the decision to fund Spinraza reflects a constructive approach to rare disorders now being taken by Pharmac. New Zealand epidemiology data suggests that up to 50 people could be eligible for funded treatment with Spinraza under Pharmac’s criteria. Another part of this approach is the development of a rare disorder strategy, which Pharmac and the Ministry of Health are currently in the process of developing.

Arena Williams: What additional funding has been provided to Pharmac?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As promised in 2020, $200 million over four years was provided in Budget 2021, and in this year’s Budget, an additional $191 million over two years was provided—that’s $71 million this year and $120 million next year. This means that over the last five years, this Government has increased the Pharmac budget by $375 million, or 43 percent.

Arena Williams: What other consequences have there been for recent additional funding for Pharmac?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Since 2017, Pharmac’s annual budget spend on chemotherapeutic agents to treat cancer has increased from $83.3 million to just over $149 million. As a consequence of the new funding in Budget 2022, Pharmac’s considering proposals from pharmaceutical suppliers for new treatments for New Zealanders with cancer, including lung cancer, which affects a large number of New Zealanders, and currently has one of the biggest equity gaps for our communities.

Arena Williams: Why is additional funding for Pharmac important?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: New Zealanders generally understand that we cannot do everything in health that we would like to do, but do expect our health system to keep up with orthodox treatments available in comparable countries. This Government has prioritised putting additional funding into health, and into Pharmac, to enable the best-possible medicines with the resources we have. We’ve been able to do this by ensuring a responsible tax regime, something that would be highly unlikely if tax revenue was reduced. Cutting taxes, as some people are proposing, will put these health services and treatments at risk.

Question No. 5—Broadcasting and Media

5. to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by his statements regarding the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, “We no longer have trust in national media” and “We need a trusted public broadcaster”?

I stand by the sentiment of what I said. However, I recognise these statements are open to interpretation, which is fair enough. So let me clarify what I meant. This was no reflection on RNZ and TVNZ, but a reflection that the whole media landscape has changed, with audiences now more likely to be engaged with streaming services or social media than traditional media. Surveys show that RNZ and TVNZ are our most trusted media, but, overall—as the Opposition knows, or refuses to acknowledge—trust in media is slipping, both here and internationally, and this Government wants to do something about it.

Melissa Lee: If New Zealanders do not trust public broadcasters, as he said, can he explain why they will trust the merged RNZ and TVNZ, which is also a public broadcaster?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said, we have a lot of trust in what’s happening in terms of national media at the moment, and the public should trust that this is a Government that will invest in a very important area of New Zealand and we will continue to support national media.

Melissa Lee: I’m not so sure he actually answered that question.

SPEAKER: I think he did address it.

Melissa Lee: Does he stand by his statement: “There’s no way we’ll be telling editors how to run their news.”, and can he confirm that money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund includes conditions relating to how editors run their news?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll answer the first part of the question, and I would ask that member to read the bill—read the bill. In clause 15(3), it clearly says, in terms of editorial independence, “The Minister may not give a direction to Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media (or any of its members, subsidiaries, or employees) for any reason relating to broadcasting, selecting, commissioning, or producing particular content.”

Melissa Lee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask that question again, because I don’t think the Minister even attempted to address the question?

SPEAKER: Well, I disagree.

Melissa Lee: Can the Minister confirm that money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund includes conditions relating to how editors run their news, and will it be reflected in the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media as well?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said, we’ll be very, very clear. It will be very clear about editorial control, as I’ve read out, and in terms of the public media fund, there are clear rules around that also. But the driving principle of the public media interest fund is to support a lot of groups who’ve missed out because of what’s been happening in the media, with some of the global giants taking a vast share of the commercial funding. So it’s been set up by my predecessor Kris Faafoi, and we’re proud that it has supported media groups and communities who have been missing out.

Melissa Lee: Does the Minister believe there is a risk that future Governments will direct the new public broadcaster for political purposes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: There’s always a risk, particularly if the future Government is that Opposition party across the other side.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is she considering any new changes to Working for Families in order to meet her Government’s commitment to making “New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child”?

Working for Families has made a considerable difference in the lives of New Zealand families, and I’m proud that such a foundational shift to better support children was introduced by a previous Labour Government. Since then, we have continued to improve it. This Government introduced the Best Start payment last term to support new parents with the costs of raising a child. On top of that, we delivered multiple increases to the family tax credit, firstly, through our Families Package and again, earlier this year, resulting in a $35 increase per week in the primary rate. Over half of all families in New Zealand benefited from these changes. Our changes have already resulted in 66,500 fewer children in poverty, and, as we announced last year, we will build on the success through the next steps with our Government’s Working for Families review.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does the Minister agree with the majority of submitters to the review who “expressed a strong preference for [Working for Families] to become more child-centric and equitable, and said that its objectives should be to reduce child poverty and ensure income adequacy rather than to provide work incentives.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I don’t think that those two things are mutually exclusive—reducing child poverty and supporting people into work are connected in some way. We know that around half of children in poverty are in working households. That’s why, when thinking about reducing child poverty, we need to bolster support across the board. As was clear from the engagement findings, people have mixed views on Working for Families. For example, some stakeholders urged just to retain the objective of supporting work incentives, and a large number of stakeholders and submitters said that supporting whānau with the costs of work is important, particularly childcare and transport costs.

Jan Logie: In terms of supporting families into work, will the Government consider the Canadian model, which removes barriers to work by providing free childcare and transport, rather than removing supports for parents doing full-time caregiving?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are considering a range of things, and one of the other reviews that we have committed to and that is under way is a review of childcare assistance. The threshold was frozen back in 2010 by the previous National Government, which has meant that over time, fewer parents have been able to access the childcare subsidy. That is another example of the very important measures that support people into work that we are considering.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she think it is equitable that children whose parents receive a main benefit miss out on a key Working for Families tax credit, keeping those tamariki locked in poverty; and, if not, will she end this discrimination?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it’s really important that we support all of our tamariki. That is why we moved to increase benefits, I think, three years in a row running, with significant increases that reversed the changes that had been made to benefit levels back in 1991, I believe. There are a range of initiatives that need to be undertaken. We’re always about looking for fairness in the system. I will acknowledge too that for low-income households, though, it is important that they are supported, because often it’s difficult for them to take up work when they don’t get additional financial support for things like transport and childcare.

Jan Logie: Does she think that caregiving is work—or heart mahi, as Māori submitters referred to it—and, if so, why don’t full-time caregivers get the full support of Working for Families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m a mother—absolutely, I know that’s work.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Minister consider recommitting to Annette King’s 2011 promise that under a Government led by Labour, beneficiary families would have access to the full Working for Families?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, we are committed to the review that we are undertaking of Working for Families, and I certainly wouldn’t want to pre-empt any of the final concluding results from that.

Question No. 7—Sport and Recreation

7. to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: Talofa, Mr Speaker. What recent funding announcements has he made in respect of the FIFA Women’s World Cup?

Last week, I announced that the Government would invest $19 million into upgrades at facilities around New Zealand ahead of the world cup next year. The grounds are match venues or are in line to be training venues or team bases. The upgrades include pitch lighting and facility enhancements, as well as upgrading changing rooms so that they are appropriate, regardless of gender. The venues and local councils are also contributing to the cost of the upgrades. The FIFA Women’s World Cup will be the biggest sporting event New Zealand has ever hosted. These upgrades will leave a legacy for communities around New Zealand and put us in a stronger position when bidding to host major international events in the future.

Barbara Edmonds: What investment is being made into facilities in Porirua, Tawa, and the Wellington region, as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In Wellington, the Government’s investment is $6 million in total, going towards upgrades at the Wellington Regional Stadium, Martin Luckie Park, Newtown Park No. 1, and Porirua Park, for facility upgrades and changing space upgrades. Historically, female athletes have had to use changing rooms designed for males, with urinals and limited numbers of cubical toilets, and open showers. These facilities represent an important step forward to make sure that we cater equally for all players and officials, regardless of gender.

Barbara Edmonds: What investment is being made into facilities in Dunedin as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, four Dunedin sportsgrounds will receive a total of $1.6 million in Government funding for upgrades. The Dunedin stadium, Tahuna Park, University No. 6, and the Caledonian Ground will benefit from upgrades, including new lighting and facility enhancements, pitch upgrades, and the installation of new changing spaces that are appropriate regardless of gender. The local Dunedin council and regional development authorities have said that the upgrades will benefit the wider sporting community, leaving a tangible legacy in improved facilities for all sporting codes to enjoy.

Jamie Strange: What investment has been made into facilities in Hamilton as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, more good news. Hamilton is receiving more than $1.1 million towards the cost of upgrades at four venues: Waikato Stadium, Porritt Park, Gower Park, and Korikori Park. Six hundred thousand dollars will go towards ensuring the training venues have the infrastructure required to host an event of this magnitude, while the remaining $550,000 has been committed to Waikato Stadium and Porritt Park to meet the requirements for the tournament. Authorities in the Waikato have said that the upgrades at local sporting facilities will encourage more people to take part in community sport and that the venue infrastructure upgrades will put Hamilton in a stronger position when bidding to host international events in the future.

Tangi Utikere: What investment is being made into facilities in Palmerston North as part of this announcement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the training ground at Massey’s Manawatu campus has been chosen by FIFA to be included in possible locations for team base camps. In order to get the sport institute up to the required FIFA standards, developments will include renovating the main pitch, upgrading the field lights, and some minor facility renewals indoors. These developments will benefit, in the short term, Massey and the Manawatū, as well as long-term benefits for football and footballers in this region for many years to come.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 23 August 2022, in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, that “I think that there have been a couple of referrals” when asked whether a case had been referred to a senior court; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Since the commission began accepting applications in July 2020, commission staff have received 325 cases. Of those, 94 cases have been closed, while 18 cases have been referred internally for a section 25 investigation. I’m advised that the first onward referral to a senior court is expected to be considered by the commissioners in the next six to eight weeks. Two further cases are nearing the final stages of the internal investigation and will likely be considered early next year. As this work is critical to upholding confidence in the justice system, careful consideration is needed, and progress is dependent on the complexity of the case and the provision of key documents and information from applicants and both investigative and prosecutorial authorities.

Chris Penk: If, as the Minister has confirmed, there have still been zero referrals to courts after more than two years of its operation, how can the Minister be certain of the timing of a particular referral unless the outcome of that matter has been predetermined?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister can’t be absolutely certain, but the advice that the commission has given to the Minister’s office in advance of this question is as I outlined in the primary answer.

Chris Penk: In relation to any upcoming referrals, have victims of the crimes for which a conviction has previously been made been notified that the matters are being reopened or potentially reopened, and, if so, what support is being given to them?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not able to answer that in respect of an individual case, but I am sure that the commission is taking into account the interests of victims.

Chris Penk: Is the Minister aware of any of the full-time staff employed with the Criminal Cases Review Commission having prior criminal convictions, and, if so, does this seem an appropriate way to arrange its affairs given the need for public confidence in the system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of whether or not that is the case. Obviously, it would depend on the nature and age of the conviction.

Question No. 9—Conservation

9. to the Minister of Conservation: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How has Jobs for Nature supported people into nature-based employment opportunities?

谢谢. Jobs for Nature has been a fundamental in our efforts to build back better and support nature-based solutions. Mana in Kaimahi is one such example, a community project which has, to date, supported 38 people into work and resulted in 136,660 plants being grown, 56,508 trees planted, 29.5 hectares treated for weeds, and 132,878 plants planted in riparian, lake, and wetland areas. Grassroots projects such as these are helping us build a network of conservation champions up and down the country while also supporting employment opportunities and environmental outcomes that will benefit us for decades to come.

Rachel Brooking: How have projects such as Mana in Kaimahi supported young people?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: These projects often do a lot more than providing employment and conservation outcomes. They also provide our young people with opportunities to upskill across the board. This includes support to access New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications and opportunities to reconnect people with the community, with supports from groups such as Te Whāngai Trust. They are giving our young people the chance to grow, be mentored, and thrive in our natural environment.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why, in October 2021, did the Government’s Implementation Unit recommend that Jobs for Nature stop further approvals and for funding to be returned to the Crown because “There would not be a labour force to do the work.”, and can the Minister assure the House that none of the jobs she is counting towards Jobs for Nature already existed before the programme started?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In answer to the first part of the question, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Implementation Unit did undertake a stocktake report in October 2021, and the department has addressed the key recommendations of that report by strengthening Jobs for Nature link with internal systems and processes, through improved engagement with our operations business group; continuing to strengthen assurance systems and insights reporting, conducting deep-dive learning review site visits in five regions; and commencing the regional investment review.

Rachel Boyack: What other groups has Jobs for Nature partnered with?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Jobs for Nature has partnered with groups such as Sustainable Business Network, in collaboration with iwi, hapū, and other local groups, to link community restoration and nursery groups nationwide with Jobs for Nature funding. These projects are supercharging conservation efforts of the department, iwi, hapū, councils, and the wider community. It will have tangible benefits for decades to come.

Rachel Brooking: How has Jobs for Nature supported communities through the economic challenges of COVID-19?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The Jobs for Nature programme has been instrumental in providing flexible employment opportunities for staff who were affected by the tourism downturn following the onset of COVID-19. This has meant that tourism operators have been able to retain talent as we worked to reopen our borders.

Rachel Brooking: What have been the overall benefits of Jobs for Nature across the country?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Since the programme began, over 4,000 people have been placed into work by the 212 conservation projects across the country. To date, the Department of Conservation has invested over $460 million into providing nature-based employment opportunities and tangible benefits for New Zealand’s biodiversity.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I seek leave to table a document from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet titled Jobs for Nature Stocktake of Progress.

SPEAKER: Is that publicly available?

Hon Jacqui Dean: Yes, it is.

I can’t then.

Question No. 10—Children

10. to the Minister for Children: Does he stand by his statement that criticism of the Government’s Oranga Tamariki policies are “noise”, and does he consider the views of State care survivors are noise?

I accept that there are criticisms of Oranga Tamariki’s policies in that State care survivors will have views on Oranga Tamariki. I have every intention of engaging with discussions around policies, and a big part of setting the new direction for Oranga Tamariki was listening to those who have experienced the system.

Harete Hipango: Why did the Minister dismiss those with lived experience of the State care and protection system and the concerns they raised questioning the Government’s Oranga Tamariki reforms as “a bunch of grizzlers” and nothing but “noise”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That criticism was at submitters who were submitting outside of the scope of that particular bill.

Harete Hipango: Why does the Minister in Government continue refusing to listen—refusing to listen—and act upon the advice of the most vulnerable people, those with lived experience of the very system meant to protect them?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I reject that. I think the member is asking me questions on a bill that I was not responsible for.

Harete Hipango: Point of order. The Minister is of the view that he “thinks”. I make a statement of fact that the Minister has continued to refuse to listen to the public; not what the Minister thinks. There’s a difference.

SPEAKER: That’s not really a point of order. The Minister addressed the question that was asked. Have you got further questions?

Harete Hipango: Does the Minister know better than all those learned and experienced persons, practitioners, and advocates who all disagree with the Government’s reforms—those at the coalface and interface: the child welfare specialists and advocates, social workers, health and legal practitioners, psychologists, doctors, nurses, former police officers, lawyers, judges, academics, public policy experts, community agencies, and Māori leaders, to name but a few?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve never made that claim.

SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Ibrahim Omer—oh sorry, have you got a further supplementary?

Harete Hipango: Thank you. Finally, does he agree that the Children’s Commissioner has been the most vocal, visible, experienced, and credible public advocate for children in this country, and, if so, why did the Government ignore the New Zealand public’s and Children’s Commissioner’s plea to retain and properly resource the integrity and function of her office and role?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I respect the role played by the Children’s Commissioner.

Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)

11. to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): 谢谢, Mr Speaker. How are the Government supporting mental health and the wellbeing in schools and kura?

This Government is committed to improving the mental health and wellbeing of our young people. To this end, Minister Davis and I launched two new, high-quality resources to support wellbeing and the teaching and learning of mental health education in schools and kura.

Ibrahim Omer: Why has the Government launched these resources?

Hon JAN TINETTI: We know that our kids and young people learn best when they are happy and healthy. This Government wants to ensure the very best learning environments for our kids. These resources will help ensure that students have their identity valued, and feel safe and confident in themselves and in their school.

Ibrahim Omer: Have resources been provided for kura kaupapa and in te reo Māori?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yes, we have. Te Oranga Mauri is a te reo Māori resource grounded in mātauranga Māori and kōrero tuku iho. I tautoko the kupu of my colleague the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education), Kelvin Davis. The resource affirms existing successful practice in kura, offering a new way of aligning with regenerating ancestral practice by increasing awareness of your own mauri, the mauri of others, and its impacts.

Ibrahim Omer: What are other examples of Government support of mental health and wellbeing for young people?

Hon JAN TINETTI: In addition to the practical guides and resources we’ve rolled out, thanks to the investment made by this Labour Government, 24,000 additional young people now have access to counselling support at school. We also have expanded the Mana Ake mental health and wellbeing programme across six regions now.

Ibrahim Omer: How is the Government supporting teachers to teach mental health?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The resources that we launched yesterday are specifically targeted at supporting teachers, leaders, and school boards. Mental health education is primarily about learning, rather than about solving mental health or public health problems. When students learn the skills to support their mental health and that of others, they have the building blocks to boost their own resilience and experience enhanced wellbeing.

Question No. 12—Education

12. to the Minister of Education: What actions has Te Pūkenga taken that have resulted in its forecast 2022 operating deficit being revised down from $110 million to $63 million, and is he satisfied with the actions Te Pūkenga is taking to meet its financial objectives?

As I’ve previously advised the House, Te Pūkenga has implemented several initiatives to help reduce the deficit, including a recruitment freeze and prudent cost control measures. The improved forecast also reflects higher than expected revenue through Te Pūkenga Work Based Learning Limited, which is due to higher learner numbers. I’m satisfied with the actions taken by Te Pūkenga to improve its financial position in the short term. However, further work is needed to ensure that Te Pūkenga is financially sustainable in the long term, and that work is under way.

Penny Simmonds: Is Te Pūkenga intending to account for one-off revenue derived from land sales as operating income to artificially reduce their forecast deficit, and, if so, does he consider this to be normal accounting practice?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There will be a range of one-off revenue and one-off expenditure that is included in that figure, because when you’re undertaking a significant restructuring exercise, there’s often one-off expenditure which can also contribute to a deficit.

Penny Simmonds: Isn’t it the case that Te Pūkenga has been such a failure, they are now booking land sales as operating income to hide their financial woes?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Penny Simmonds: Was there any connection between the chief financial officer (CFO) of Te Pūkenga resigning after less than three months in the job and Te Pūkenga’s accounting practices?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think that’s a relatively serious allegation that the member is making, and if she has any evidence for it, I suggest that she present it.

Penny Simmonds: Isn’t Te Pūkenga’s latest CFO’s resignation after less than three months in the job and its unorthodox accounting practices symptomatic of an institution that hasn’t got a clue how to sort out its financial situation driven by a Minister that has even less idea how to deal with financial issues in a Government obsessed with an ideology of centralisation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I reject all of assertions in that question.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

1. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Did he support the extension of the report-back date for the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill from 6 October 2022 to 28 February 2023; if so, why?

Yes, and that was to allow more time to consider the issues that were raised by submitters and the Attorney-General, and to further engage with the council following the local elections period.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General, who said the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act by giving extra voting rights to one group of New Zealanders, and, if so, why is he still supporting it?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member in charge of the bill has no responsibility for the Attorney-General’s advice.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the—

SPEAKER: You asked for his opinion?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yeah—did he agree with it; that’s all.

TĀMATI COFFEY: I don’t feel as though, as the sponsor of the bill, it’s my position to give a position on whether or not I agree with an Attorney-General report.